Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
designated for poor suitbility and that includes structural and poor condition ratings. and nine that are hazardous. >> poor suitbility is not necessarily on its way to failing, is it? >> commissioners? >> i am the planning and capital director at the recreation and park, this is one of projects. the issues that you are seeing in this particular project are repeating themselves in many sites across our portfolio. these issues are close to people's heart. poor suitbility as she noted we only touch a park about once every 50 years. so when we have funding available, we have to make decisions about the long-term health of that forest at that particular site. so when we identify a tree is poor suitbility. that means that we are making a risk analysis that this tree has a high likelihood of failure and the site conditions are not supportive of that tree having the long healthy life as establishing itself as a mature tree that will last the length of time that we would idealy like it to. what we are trying to do is make decisions that again ensure the over all health of that forest. if
to people's heart. poor suitbility as she noted we only touch a park about once every 50 years. so when we have funding available, we have to make decisions about the long-term health of that forest at that particular site. so when we identify a tree is poor suitbility. that means that we are making a risk analysis that this tree has a high likelihood of failure and the site conditions are not supportive of that tree having the long healthy life as establishing itself as a mature tree that will last the length of time that we would idealy like it to. what we are trying to do is make decisions that again ensure the over all health of that forest. if we wait until it becomes hazardous there is a high likelihood that we will not have funding at that point to deal with. poor suitbility means that the tree may not be an immediate failing health right now but we are projecting that treat is at risk and the high risk, based on establish arborist principles that it may really pose a risk five or ten years from now and we will not be at the site and have the funds to deal with these issues. >> what
asking rpd to revise the plan and rpd has yet to meet with the public to explain the poor suitbility criteria that is being used for removing the trees. so, it is absolutely correct what rpd is saying as far as the 44 trees, in the natural areas, but they are not related to the construction. rec and park tacked those trees on long after the last community meeting and the trees are going to be replaced with about 2,000 native plants. but at best is the appearance that they are influencing the controversial and unapproved natural areas program with using rec center funds. even if one agrees with removing these trees, the removal belong with the forestry project and not hijacking the funds for the recreation facility. none of these trees, except for emergency removals are exempt from the environmental review. trees are considered the lungs of the city and are being stripped bit by bit. as of october first, three currently funded projects will remove 150 trees, which is down from the original 280, but one would expect more coming later. poor suitbility is not hazardous. the rec and parks
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)